Creationists Want Equal Time on Cosmos »« A Wingnut Star is Born

Wingnuts React to Michigan Marriage Ruling

Bigots around the state of Michigan are reacting to the federal court ruling striking down Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage and second-parent adoption with all the simpleminded inanity we’ve come to expect from them. I’ll start slow with Gary Glenn of the AFA of Michigan:

“One Detroit lawyer in a black robe doesn’t have legitimate constitutional or moral authority to overturn either natural law or the vote of 2.7 million Michigan voters who placed the Marriage Protection Amendment in our state constitution. This one political elitist put his own personal views above the will of the people, arrogantly ruling that all 2.7 million voters were ‘irrational’ in their common sense belief that the ideal environment for every child is having both a mother and a father committed to each other and to their children in marriage. We support Attorney General Bill Schuette in his appeal to overturn this illegitimate decision that has at least temporarily stripped Michigan citizens of the full measure and impact of their voting rights.”

This must be the new right wing talking point, the idea that if voters pass a law that is overturned they’ve somehow had their voting rights stripped. That’s incredibly stupid. Here’s another variation, from a group of 100 black ministers:

A coalition of over 100 Black Detroit Pastors, led by Rev. Dr. Roland A. Caldwell and Pastor Lennell Caldwell, have hosted both a press Conference and a rally in support of Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment since Judge Friedman has been residing over the case.

The pastors have issued a swift response.

“Judge Friedman has negated the vote of 2.7 million voters in the State of Michigan. Moreover, he has said to the almost 70 percent of Black citizens who voted in favor of marriage protection that our voting rights are no longer protected. Abraham Lincoln, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr and our forefathers apparently died in vain,” remarked Rev. Dr. Roland A. Caldwell, Pastor of Burnette Inspirational Ministry, Detroit, Michigan.

Minister Stacy Swimp, Gospel Activist and Founder of “Revive Alive, Flint, Michigan, ” stated, “It is a sad day for Michigan that Judge Friedman has ruled that preserving the only civil institution that unites children with their mothers and fathers is unconstitutional. Rest assured, however, that we shall continue to fight for the rights of children, and for our faith, for our families, and for our religious freedom.”

“We call on all the sitting County Clerks across the State of Michigan to refrain from issuing redefined marriage licenses, as stated by the Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, until the matter is fully determined on appeal,” concludes Rev. Lennell Caldwell, First Baptist World Changers International Church, Detroit, Michigan.

Well the response was swift, I’ll give them that. It was not, however, rational and well thought out. A law that violates the Constitution is overturned no matter how many people voted for it or favor it and that does not, in any way whatsoever, deny their right to vote. Imagine these same black pastors 50 years ago when the decision in Loving v Virginia came down, which struck down state laws banning interracial marriage. Those laws were very popular in the states that had them and some were passed by referendum. Did that rob white people who voted for them of their right to vote? Of course not. In fact, laws requiring segregation — the very laws that Martin Luther King spent his entire life fighting against — were wildly popular in the south and some of them were passed by referendum as well.

This is every bit as stupid and hypocritical as arguments about “judicial activism.” They’re only used by someone when they disagree with the ruling. If a law was passed by referendum that they disagreed with and it was overturned by the courts, would they be screaming about how the right to vote is being infringed or about judicial activists overturning the will of the people? Of course not.

Comments

  1. Jordan Genso says

    It is as though they sent out a memo to all of the conservative commenters out there, that the argument is now “hey, we have nothing against the LGBT community, we just don’t like when judges overturn something that a majority voted for”. I’ve come across that position several times over the weekend, and I’ve not gotten one response when I ask them what judges are supposed to do with unconstitutional laws, if they can’t overturn them.

  2. John Pieret says

    This must be the new right wing talking point, the idea that if voters pass a law that is overturned they’ve somehow had their voting rights stripped. That’s incredibly stupid.

    When has that ever stopped them before?

    They know that they have lost the public opinion battle. Their only hope to keep denying gays basic human rights is if they can hold onto those referendum victories they won when they were chivvied into making it an issue by Karl Rove as a way to get out the vote to reelect Bush.

  3. gshelley says

    “It is a sad day for Michigan that Judge Friedman has ruled that preserving the only civil institution that unites children with their mothers and fathers is unconstitutional.

    Not that I want to help out the bigots, but perhaps they could read the dam ruling before complaining about it. It’s been quoted all over the place, so it’s not that hard. Then at least they could address the reasoning the judge used, rather than just repeating the same irrational arguments the state used but were thoroughly discredited.

  4. Dave Maier says

    gshelley: they could address the reasoning the judge used

    No, see, like the guy says, “this one political elitist put his own personal views above the will of the people”, so apparently the ruling in its entirety reads “Nyah, nyah, I’m a judge and I say this law is no good so ha!”

  5. says

    This must be the new right wing talking point, the idea that if voters pass a law that is overturned they’ve somehow had their voting rights stripped. That’s incredibly stupid.

    Nah. Just another example of the long-held belief among wingnuts that any result in which they don’t get their way is illegtimate.

  6. says

    …the ideal environment for every child is having both a mother and a father committed to each other and to their children in marriage…

    …which requires preventing gay people from getting married, for some reason.

  7. says

    the vote of 2.7 million Michigan voters who placed the Marriage Protection Amendment in our state constitution

    That was in 2004. I wonder if Gary Glenn would dare to put it up for a vote today?

  8. says

    someone should go to these people and ask them to comment regarding quotes from Loving v. Virginia without telling them what it’s from and then record their reaction when it’s revealed.

  9. scienceavenger says

    @6 …and yet has nothing to say about making it harder for straight people to get married, or more importantly, get divorced.

  10. John Pieret says

    Judge Friedman addressed this talking point:

    Further, the Court rejects the contention that Michigan’s traditional definition of marriage possesses a heightened air of legitimacy because it was approved by voter referendum. The popular origin of the MMA does nothing to insulate the provision from constitutional scrutiny. As Justice Robert H. Jackson once wrote,

    [t]he very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the
    vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities
    and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.
    One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of
    worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to
    vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

  11. Wylann says

    “It is a sad day for Michigan that Judge Friedman has ruled that preserving the only civil institution that unites children with their mothers and fathers is unconstitutional.

    Hrm, so they banned divorce?

  12. felidae says

    Golly, wasn’t the “natural law” argument used in making the case for prohibiting interracial marriage?

  13. D. C. Sessions says

    So these black pastors are in favor of States like Mississippi (where the majority favors enforcement of the State’s law against “miscegenation”) continuing to block mixed marriages?

    And presumably also in favor of other States going back to popular laws collectively called “Jim Crow?”

  14. hunter says

    D. C. @13: I actually left a comment at YouTube on Caldwell’s clip asking how many voters’ rights were lost after Brown v. Board of Education.

Leave a Reply